The Gujarat High Court on Friday (October 9) orally remarked that it will not permit Surat Municipal Corporation, which it said had earlier agreed to provide accommodation to residents whose homes were razed during an "illegal" demolition drive in June, to attempt to back out of the agreement. 

Previously, Surat Municipal Corporation had vehemently disputed the claim of residents affected by the "illegal" demolition of homes in Nasir Nagar area that the alternative accommodation offered to them was in a “dilapidated” condition.

Justice Nikhil S Kariel was hearing a petition filed by a group of residents concerning the demolition drive carried out in the area in June.

During the hearing, the court while granting the time to the Corporation's counsel to come back with instructions orally said:

"The idea which I am getting from the Corporation, it was agreed before this court that we will give accommodation. Now if the Corporation is attempting to back out, I will not permit it. We are looking at accommodation. The how, was your problem. The accommodation was for sure. The Corporation had agreed through learned Advocate General that these people will be accommodated. Now if the Corporation is trying to go back...Corporation is not short of funds to pay"

At the outset, the senior advocate appearing for the Corporation said that the rehabilitation was possible under earlier JN Scheme but that was not acceptable to the petitioners.

The court at this stage orally said, "You are trying to push your responsibility to some scheme...You have to pay from your own funds. We didn't want the Corporation to use the schemes which were being floated by the Central Government to undo a wrong done by them...You have to suggest a way out. Once you have demolished it you cannot say that there is some scheme of the Central Government where we could have but we don't have. Surat Municipal Corporation has a lot of funds...You can recover from your employees as arrears of land revenue who demolished the property. Vicariously the Corporation is responsible".

Meanwhile, the senior counsel said that issue may not survive because the petitioners' affidavit seeks compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh. At this stage the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners said that if the Corporation cannot offer decent houses then they can pay compensation to the residents in the alternative. 

To this the court orally said, "I take that they are agreeable to compensation. It is for you to decide whether you are agreeable to providing them with residential accommodation or pay compensation".

At this juncture, the senior counsel for Corporation referred to the orders and affidavits and suggested that some of the persons involved were in illegal occupation, and "they are all on the road". 

To this the court orally said that whether residents were persons illegally occupying or not has not been decided.

"That is contention taken in 3-4th affidavit. That contention could have been averred by you if you had started demolition in accordance with law...That is a submission which is now being brought into picture. That probably they were in illegal occupation. What is being shown is the land belonged to a private individual who had tried to give it to the Corporation...Im not deciding that. As of now Im looking at demolition of a residential structure by Corporation. We will not comprehend a situation where a residential house of any citizen is demolished without appropriate legal procedure being followed," the court said. 

The court orally said that the Corporation had demolished the homes and now it was trying to say that it "probably had a right to demolish". However the court said that this was not an argument that could be countenanced by the court as of now.

With regard to the scheme the court orally said, "Today for the first time I am realizing that it was some scheme which was central government scheme. You cannot appropriate property of this scheme...you are just allotting authority. That (scheme) was for some other purpose. Even if they are dilapidated or good condition you do not have the right to say that perhaps you have committed some wrong but we will try to accommodate in that scheme. That we will not countenance. You can tell us your stand we can decide it"

It further orally said that a wrong was undisputedly committed and if the Corporation's officers have committed the wrong then the vicariously liability is on the Corporation.

"They have to bear the burden. How they will recover that is your business...We are looking at a peculiar situation. Residences of citizens are demolished.Now you are trying to say probably we had a right to demolish; that cannot be said...You can take a call on it. Its your choice. Im trying to see that we can find a via media. But if it comes to it I'm never shy of passing any orders," the court said adding that while illegality will have to be decided but as of now the Corporation had to restore "status quo ante". 

The court while listing the matter after two weeks, also orally asked the Municipal Commissioner to remain present along with the head of the elected wing of the Corporation in order to know that once it was agreed that accommodation would be provided then why the change of stand. 

The matter is now listed on October 23.